JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. All the 04 Revisional Applications involved similar facts and issues thus, they are taken up together for brevity of discussions.

2. This is an application u/s 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against an order dated 22.06.2018 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court Calcutta in complaint case Nos. CS-24873/2015, CS-24865/2015, CS-24869/2015, CS-24871/2015 u/s 138 read with Section 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act thereby rejecting the petitioner’s application u/s 311 Cr.P.C.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner has preferred a complaint case against the present opposite parties alleging thereby for commission of an offence punishable u/s 138 read with Section 141 of NI Act.

4. In a nutshell brief fact of the complaint is that, the opposite parties herein had approached to the petitioner for a loan. The petitioner had provided that loan, subsequently the Opposite parties issued cheques in order to pay the loan along with interest thereon, but, when the petitioner tried to encash the cheques issued by the Ops the cheques were dishonoured because of “insufficient funds” in the account of the Opposite parties. However, the fact of the petitioner was denied by the opposite party. The petitioner had filed a list of document as well as the list witnesses before the initiation of the trial. During the trial PW-1 Mr. Mahabir Prasad Ramani was examined-in-chief and cross-examined by the opposite parties in part. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application u/s 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Praying that the petitioner may be allowed to recall PW-1 for re-examination to prove the computerised Bank statements of the petitioner’s bank account with Allahabad Bank from which the petitioner transferred the alleged loan amount to the opposite parties.

5. The said application was heard by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate and rejected by passing the impugned order.

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of rejection the petitioner has filed the instant revision before this court.

7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Learned Magistrate has committed error in holding that the complainant did not agitate the alleged fact and the time of filing of the petition of complaint and after a lapse of 07 years and also after his examination and cross-examination he tried to fill up the lacuna of this case by filling the proposed additional evidence on affidavit which is barred by law. Whereas the complainant case is at the stage of examination of PW 1 and as such the claim of the petitioner cannot be barred by law of limitation. He further argued that Learned Magistrate ought to have considered that by way of additional evidence the petitioner only prays that recall and re-examine PW 1 to prove the computerise bank statement of the petitioners banker Allahabad Bank from which the petitioner transfer the said loan amount on different dates through RTGS to the account of opposite parties. He further argued by virtue of provision u/s 145 (1) of the NI Act. The petitioner may be allowed to file affidavit on such facts.

8. He further argued that the observation of Learned Magistrate is totally erroneous and the petitioner never tried to fill up his lacuna rather by way of additional evidence the truth would be elicited. There are no latches or mistake on the part of the petitioner to delayed the proceeding; unless the petition u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is allowed the petitioner’s case cannot be clarified properly.

9. He further argued that Learned Magistrate while rejecting the petitioner’s application u/s 311 Cr.P.C ought to have considered that this is not a new fact which is petitioners tried to bring out by the said application. The petitioner in spite of all the efforts could not produce those documents earlier to consider that a lacuna in the prosecution is not to be equated with the fall out of an oversight committed by a prosecutor durin